Memeorandum

January 05, 2006

Christiane Amanpour Of CNN Spied Upon?

Now what - NBC has a "now you see it, now you don't transcript" of a chat between Andrea Mitchell and NSA scooper James Risen that originally included this exchange (from John Aravosis):

Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net?

Risen:
No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll
have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not?
I don't know the answer to that

Mitchell: You don't have any
information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane
Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon?

Risen: No, no I hadn't heard that.

Now, however, the edited transcript glides right past the specific Amanpour question.

What does it mean? As we await developments, we note a helpful mix of background and hysteria from Attytood (via Mr. Aravosis). Let's use this:

The least cynical answer would be because her recent reporting would
have brought her into direct contact with members of al Qaeda. In
August 2002, not long after Bush began to authorize the warrantless
spying program, Amanpour worked with CNN's Nic Robertson on a special
that was billed as an inside view of al-Qaeda.

So why is NBC breaking this instead of CNN? C'mon, this NSA story was launched to delight folks who would otherwise play blind man's bluff in the fog. At night. After a few drinks. But maybe CNN will get to it eventually [They do, and know nothing].

And what does it mean? On a good day, we would learn that, if there is anything to this report at all, Ms. Amanpour was never specifically targeted, but happened to be called from a "hot" phone number being traced for other reasons. And if it all happened overseas, well, que sera sera.

And on a bad day? We don't have bad days around here. Good, and better - that's it.

And any White House explanation of deliberate spying on a reporter better be good.

UPDATE: Does the idea that terrorists call in to news bureaus really surprise people? Wretchard and Powerline tackled this in Dec 2004 with the AP.

What does it even mean to be an American if Ms. Amanpour cannot take a call in the privacy of her Baghdad office from an Al Qaeda operative in Afghanistan who is being monitored by the NSA? Good question.

I am having an easy time conjuring deeply untroubling scenarios in which Ms. Amanpour might have been spied upon. Of course, other scenarios are also possible.

STILL MORE: Christiane Amanpour is based in London - I know the politics of monitoring a reporter are gruesome, but what is the law on the NSA monitoring US citizens overseas on non-US calls? I would have said from this definition of "electronic surveillance" that anything goes.

I saw that fantasy flitting in the ether yesterday about the edited transcript. What interested me is that "everybody knew"Plame Mitchell was the one with the story. Perhaps they edited it hoping no one in the DoJ would catch on that once again someone was leaking to her?

I saw that fantasy flitting in the ether yesterday about the edited transcript. What interested me is that "everybody knew Plame" Mitchell was the one with the story. Perhaps they edited it hoping no one in the DoJ would catch on that once again someone was leaking to her?

Jamie Rubin was a Kerry campaign foreign policy adviser. So he sipped mint tea with Joe Wilson and Rand Beers. Officials close to campaign, that requested anonymity, tell me that the mint tea might have been Fool-Aid.

What's the law say about spying on "world citizens" like Amanpour? If she's a world citizen then which constitution protects her?

"MSNBC later removed that part of the transcript, telling the blog TVNewser, "Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry."

AJ, good point about the reporters being people who have "relations" with AQ. But don't be so quick to label them paranoid -- if the NSA was monitoring reporters' outgoing overseas calls in order to track down terrorists, then that significantly endangers journalists who have talked to terrorists in the past and might do so in the future.

It might also explain Mitchell's disappearing transcript. She said this on the air, and somebody at MSNBC got a phone call that went, "YOU !$%^#@ IDIOT!!! ARE YOU TRYING TO GET REPORTERS KILLED?!?!? THAT'S THE SECRET AND WE ARE TRYING TO PROTECT YOU MISERABLE SORRY MORON JOURNALISTS BY KEEPING AQ FROM FINDING OUT!!!"

The point has been made over and over that the whole Plame Kerfuffle was a bizarre suicidal exercise on the part of the media which needs leaks to survive. Maybe the NSA campaign is going to be literally suicidal and get gobs of journalists killed. Is there anything that can be done to stop them? It's one thing for reporters to go to jail for protecting sources, but this would be the NYT getting reporters killed.

The reason CNN would not break this story seems simple. Would you want the public to know that one of your folks is chatting it up with terrorists? Legal, illegle, or whatever. That's even a much different public perception than having her "interview" terrorists. Bush is not tapping reporters' phones like Nixon. You'd think they would know by now that Bush doesn't give a crap about reporters. If Amanpour was caught, it was in the wide net and that puts her on the "wrong" side...even for a liberal Bush-hating network.

And any White House explanation of deliberate spying on a reporter better be good.

Here's the simple explanation: Reporters and media conglomerates, despite their protestations to the contrary, are not impartial observers whose seeking of the truth places them above the law and outside the realm of human responsibility.

We already have CNN's admission of its collaboration with Saddam and Iraq for a decade or so to suppress information about that country in order to benefit themselves (i.e. they were privy to information they chose not to share so they could milk more exclusive psuedo-stories, despite the cost in human lives and suffering of their selfish decision). Coupling that fact with Amanpour's globetrotting and rather sympathetic political views, and I wouldn't be surprised if she has a wealth of information about Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups that she chooses not to reveal.

It would be nice to think that, just on the basis of humanity, Ms. Amanpour would be willing to supply information voluntarily that might save people's lives from terrorist attacks -- that she would value human lives above "the story" and "access". But we know from experience that this is often not the case. Therefore, I have no problem with the U.S. monitoring communications between her and known/suspected terrorists to gather intelligence just in case she's feeling too reporter-ish and not quite human enough to pass that information along on her own.

I certainly have no more concern about her communication being monitored because she's a "reporter" than I would if she were not. The "reporter" label is a red herring, and your encouragement of its use as a "get out of jail free" card in this instance is disappointing, TM.

CNN tapped! Remember Eason Jordan
and his deal with Saddam - hope they have his calls too. The bastard!

Hmmmm..All those "lucky" stringers working for AP, CNN, NYT's and the other LSM who are just at the right place, at the right time to get photos of terrorists attacks.

The murders in the street with shots perfectly timed.

What are the chances that Mohammed the AQ "stringer" calls his LSM bureau to report he is going to have something "big". The bureau in Iraq, bursting with excitment, calls his boss in NYC. The boss
makes "production arrangements" booking appropriate talking heads
so all on hand when scoop comes in.
Boss calls bureau in Iraq. Bureau
calls AQ stringer to make sure event is really going to happen - his butt is on line now.

Event happens - AQ stringer calls bureau with "got it" "bringing it in" and the chain of calls is repeated.

Just one senario for the murders on
Haifa Street (?) last year when three Iraqis were pulled from car and shot in head with photographer
set up close by.

Little Green Footballs had links to all the analysis of the photographs and where the photographer was actually standing.
Determined to be in plain site of
terrorists and also timing of the shots was discussed.

If you are paying any attention, you can think of 100's of "reports"
since we went into Afghanistan.

Little wonder the "press" is scared
and acting out about the NSA monitoring.

[Hypothetical] Bush sending the INS and IRS to harass and audit Amanpour (or another reporter) because she had run a story critical/detrimental to him or his administration = outrage at the clear abuse of power and concern over the chilling effect on other journalists.

[Hypothetical] The NSA monitoring Amanpour's (or another reporter's) communications with terrorists to gather intel = no outrage whatsoever at the NSA doing their job and no concern at all over any chilling effect which keeps people/reporters from collaborating with terrorists in the future.

Excellent, Epphan, I think they do know Bush doesn't give a crap about reporters, and that, as much as his ideology, really interferes with their objectivity. He is denying them what they believe to be an important, I won't say God-given, role. Well, they won't say God-given, but many act like it is.
==================================================

But then it would be easy to get a warrant. You have a warrant...then so be it. Good work. No warrant and it's a direct tap, you past the gray area and that makes even me uncomfortable...even for a traitor like Amanpour.
...Inside the U.S., of course...

My reading of FISA (section 1805 a.3.(a)) suggests a warrant requires having probable cause to believe Amanpour is an Al Qaeda agent. Since that's dubious, I'd suggest a warrant is unlikely. And I still have no problem listening in to her conversations with terrorists (assuming she's having any).

Maybe CNN is being quiet about this because it could lead to questions they don't want to answer. Maybe NBC isn't being quiet about it because thay know it will lead to questions CNN doesn't want to answer.

If this does become the biggest story of 2006, won't we have to (get to?) delve into CNN contacts with al-Qaeda?

TM - Tks for Powerline post link.
It is chilling to reread it and I am going to put it here to refresh the memories of those that don't like to think about these things.
Read and go to the trackbacks for real education.

When one realizes that all those
"talking heads" are not permanently
miked - lots of communications involved to set up these "breaking"
stories - lots of opportunies for the "reporters" and their bosses to get their butts in a wringer if NSA is monitoring the calls and emails.

"Sloppy seconds" quote comes to mind regarding embarassment to these "sophisticates" if we could read their emails setting up the breaking news such as "The Murders
on Haifa Street".

NOTE WHEN YOU READ THIS - AP WOULD NOT RELEASE THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S NAME. IS HE ON A WANTED LIST??

POWERLINE:
December 25, 2004
AP Admits Relationship With Terrorists

We have written a couple of times about the accusations of complicity with terrorists in Iraq which were made recently by Belmont Club and others. The issue relates to the shocking photo, recently published by the AP, showing three terrorists in the act of murdering two Iraqi election workers on a street during daylight. The photographer was obviously within a few yards of the scene of the murder, which raises obvious questions, such as 1) what was the photographer doing there; did he have advance knowledge of the crime, or was he even accompanying the terrorists? and 2) why did the photographer apparently have no fear of the terrorists, or conversely, why were the terrorists evidently unconcerned about being photographed in the commission of a murder?

Salon printed a defense of the AP (and an attack on conservative bloggers) that included this anonymous comment from an AP spokesman:

A source at the Associated Press knowledgeable about the events covered in Baghdad on Sunday told Salon that accusations that the photographer was aware of the militants' plans are "ridiculous." The photographer, whose identity the AP is withholding due to safety concerns, was likely "tipped off to a demonstration that was supposed to take place on Haifa Street," said the AP source, who was not at liberty to comment by name. But the photographer "definitely would not have had foreknowledge" of a violent event like an execution, the source said.
So the AP admitted that its photographer was "tipped off" by the terrorists. The only quibble asserted by the AP was that the photographer expected only a "demonstration," not a murder. So the terrorists wanted to be photographed carrying out the murder, to sow more terror in Iraq and to demoralize American voters. That's why they tipped off the photographer, and that's why they dragged the two election workers from their car, so they could be shot in front of the AP's obliging camera. And the AP was happy to cooperate with the terrorists in all respects. We'd like to ask some more questions of the photographer, of course, but that's impossible since the AP won't identify him because of "safety concerns." Really? Who would endanger his safety? The terrorists? They could have shot him on Sunday if they were unhappy about having their picture taken. But they weren't, which is why they "tipped off" the photographer. Belmont Club responded to the Salon defense here, in a post we linked to a day or two ago.

Now there's more: Jim Romanesko got an email from another AP spokesman, this time Jack Stokes, the AP's director of media relations. Here it is:

Several brave Iraqi photographers work for The Associated Press in places that only Iraqis can cover. Many are covering the communities they live in where family and tribal relations give them access that would not be available to Western photographers, or even Iraqi photographers who are not from the area.
Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures. It's important to note, though, that the photographers are not "embedded" with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures.

That makes the admission pretty well complete, I think. The AP is using photographers who have relationships with the terrorists; this is for the purpose of helping to tell the terrorists' "stories." The photographers don't have to swear allegiance to the terrorists--gosh, that's reassuring--but they have "family and tribal relations" with them. And they aren't embedded--I'm not sure I believe that--but they don't need to be either, since the terrorists tip them off when they are about to commit an act that they want filmed.

Am I missing something, or has the AP now admitted everything it was charged with by Wretchard?

My Stupid Question:
If these people are on wanted lists, and have been indicted with warrants out for them, does that mean anything regarding "reporter"
communications with these people
as we AT WAR and they are foreign agents?

Common sense leads me astray when I come up against the application of the "law".

I don't have a problem with Amanpour being caught up, so to speak, by the NSA, but I certainly hope she has not been singled out to listen in on. Unless of course she is part of AQ.

Well, I don't have a problem even if she isn't part of AQ. Imagine that a mafia hitman is a fugitive, and the cops get a warrant and tap the phone of the hitman's favorite pizza joint. Then when the hitman phones in an order the cops follow the delivery guy and arrest the hitman. I'm not outraged that the pizza guy has been singled out even though he is not part of the mafia.

If the NSA program works by tapping Amanpour's outgoing international calls waiting for an AQ operative to appear at the other end, and then using the signal to drop a cruise missile down the shorts of the AQ guy holding the cell phone, then I think that this is not unreasonable. And if all of the calls had one end in a foreign country, then as has been explained numerous times by the legal eagles, it's legal to do it without a warrant. (In the pizza delivery case a warrantless wiretap would be legal only if one end of the pizza-ordering call was out of the US.)

It is unlikely beyond the pale the government would monitor the US media. That is classic paranoid. It is completely likely that well known Al Qaeda contacts are known to the US government and the media, and when the media makes contact the US sees it.

Yes, there is no benefit in monitoring the media, but that's NOT what we have been doing. We are trying to monitor (and find) the terrorists. To the extent we can be led to the terrorists through their contacts with the media, as a matter of policy it's okay to listen in. (This assumes at least one leg of the conversation is outside the US and/or a warrant has been issued.) Please note, my stated assumption is that NSA's purpose in listening to a reporter's conversation is to find information about the terrorists. It would be a completely different matter if the purpose was to learn who was planning on giving the government unfavorable coverage.

Also, note that the terrorists have a strategic NEED to communicate with the media. Absent media coverage, terrorists have a much harder time doing their job -- influencing public policy through terrorizing the populace. On the other hand, the media has an institutional desire to talk with the terrorists -- an inside report from the terrorists' camp would sell a lot of newspapers. Given these mutual incentives to get in touch with each other, the media's international calls are likely a vein very rich in information about the terrorists.

David Walser:
Agreed, the terrorists do have a need for media attention but the AP is not obligated to provide them with a convenient and handy photographer. I wonder hoe he felt when he took the shot?

David, I agree we are monitoring the terrorists and the media could walk into that monitoring. I was simply pointing out targetting the media has little upside and a lot of downside - so not worth it.

Clarice - it is logical conjecture. We know NSA identified people in the US communicating with terrorist overseas by monitoring the terrorists overseas.

So, to pass these people to the FBI to monitor, the FBI must, by FISA, get a FISA warrant and show probable cause. The best evidence of probable cause are the NSA intercepts.

Now, couple this completely normal process -the one we are suppose to follow - with comments by the FISA judges in the WaPo article I mentioned. Many of them have concern with 'taint' in FISA warrants being authorized using NSA information.

It is so obvious this is about FISA judges not wanting to use NSA intel to authorize warrants. They say so three times in the article.

Does this make sense? The most obvious answer is NSA is a precursor to FISA, not a run around! But the MSM through ignorance (likely) or malice of disinformation (possible) have muddied the debate by jumping to the conclusion this is about abnormal actions. Not a fight over the normal processes.

BTW, we can do this via email as well. I would place it here but then I would get more spam than I am now!

"Hello Osama? This is Christiane."
"Oh hello Christiane. Did you get my Eid Card?"
"I certainly did Osama. Any news on which infidel city you'll attack next?"
"Why yes Christiane. Probably DC right at the start of Baseball Season. Zawahari thinks poison gas in the Subways is a sure-fire winner."
[Laughs]"Going back to Aum Shin Ryko basics?"
"Well you know, I'm an oldies man myself."
"Thanks Osama."
"Don't Mention it. Death to America."
"Death to America. Bye."

Maybe Christiane should ponder the position stated by Mike Wallace; that he wouldn't inform the U.S. military to save American lives, if he learned about enemy plans to attack. And send him a thank you note.

I suspect the program is much broader than is generally being discussed here and there are any number of ways that a reporter could end up on one end of a monitored communication without being a target.

Has this already been pointed out? Amanpour does not live in the US, and it is impossible to know if any of her 'monitored' calls would have involved a call that had any connection to the US. If not, I believe there's no warrant necessary at all.

I am also unsure of her status as a US Person. I don't think she is a US Citizen. Does she have a green card?

I figure NBC realized that they were either a) giving away states secrets and/or b) shooting MSM in the head.

Wouldn't you just love to see the NY Times get some "experts" speculating the how's/the why's /the who's in this rumor??? Is it true? What if we did? What about the cameraman? CIA? Is she an agent? Is it even "legal"?

Boy I can't wait for Rider to get started on the legal issues.

Then I wonder how any terrorist organization will treat the media from then on.

Is BDS really limited to W? Will it continue with the next Republican in the White House? Do we really only have 3 more years to enjoy it? If it really is limited to W, I'm all for repealing Amendment XXII so W can run again.

mmm...Rubin was with the Clinton Whitehouse. I'm sure he knows the intelligence drill. Sure, he was a part of Kerry's campaign but he also has experience in dealing with intelligence that has been collected internationally. I can't see him making a false fuss.**

Of course, there's always the 'pay no attention to my reporter spouse behind the curtain' aspect of politician/admin officials lives. That can cut both ways. Reporters married to people with high security clearances, people in contact with terrorists (as a job requirement) that are married to campaign advisors.... quite a sticky wicket.

To the Lawyers:
Is there anything in this GW statement. Non-lawyer here read lots of Commander in Chief powers
in Intelligence that supercede other branches - but I a non-lawyer. Hugh Hewitt linked to it.
Better to actually read at site
as copy/paste made one giant graph.
Links at bottom.

Office of the Press Secretary
December 30, 2005
President's Statement on Signing of H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006"
Today, I have signed into law H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006." The Act provides resources needed to fight the war on terror, help citizens of the Gulf States recover from devastating hurricanes, and protect Americans from a potential influenza pandemic. Sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 of the Act prohibit the use of funds to initiate a special access program, a new overseas installation, or a new start program, unless the congressional defense committees receive advance notice. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the President's authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority. Although the advance notice contemplated by sections 8007, 8011, and 8093 can be provided in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in wartime, in which the President must act promptly under his constitutional grants of executive power and authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while protecting certain extraordinarily sensitive national security information. The executive branch shall construe these sections in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President. Section 8059 of the Act provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 may be used to transfer defense articles or services, other than intelligence services, to another nation or an international organization for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations, until 15 days after the executive branch notifies six committees of the Congress of the planned transfer. To the extent that protection of the U.S. Armed Forces deployed for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations might require action of a kind covered by section 8059 sooner than 15 days after notification, the executive branch shall construe the section in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. A proviso in the Act's appropriation for "Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide" purports to prohibit planning for consolidation of certain offices within the Department of Defense. Also, sections 8010(b), 8032, 8037(b), and 8100 purport to specify the content of portions of future budget requests to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe these provisions relating to planning and making of budget recommendations in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to require the opinions of the heads of departments, to supervise the unitary executive branch, and to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient. Section 8005 of the Act, relating to requests to congressional committees for reprogramming of funds, shall be construed as calling solely for notification, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in INS v. Chadha. The executive branch shall construe section 8104, relating to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Also, the executive branch shall construe sections 8106 and 8119 of the Act, which purport to prohibit the President from altering command and control relationships within the Armed Forces, as advisory, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the authority of Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe provisions of the Act relating to race, ethnicity, gender, and State residency, such as sections 8014, 8020 and 8057, in a manner consistent with the requirement to afford equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment. The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005. Language in Division B of the Act, under the heading "Office of Justice Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance," purports to require the Attorney General to consult congressional committees prior to allocating appropriations for expenditure to execute the law. Because the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and take care that the laws be faithfully executed cannot be made by law subject to a requirement to consult with congressional committees or to involve them in executive decision-making, the executive branch shall construe the provision to require only notification. At the same time, the Attorney General shall, as a matter of comity between the executive and legislative branches, seek and consider the views of appropriate committees in this matter as the Attorney General deems appropriate. Certain provisions in the Act purport to allocate funds for specified purposes as set forth in the joint explanatory statement of managers that accompanied the Act or other Acts; to make changes in statements of managers that accompanied various appropriations bills reported from conferences in the past; or to direct compliance with a committee report. Such provisions include section 8044 in Division A, and sections 5022, 5023, and 5024 and language under the heading "Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Operations" in Division B, of the Act. Other provisions of the Act, such as sections 8073 and 8082 in Division A, purport to give binding effect to legislative documents not presented to the President. The executive branch shall construe all these provisions in a manner consistent with the bicameral passage and presentment requirements of the Constitution for the making of a law. GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE, December 30, 2005. # # #

Remember Walter Duranty? He covered up Joseph (Uncle Joe) Stalin's killing of 7.000,000 Ukranians so he could get an interview.

Posted by: Chief RZ | January 05, 2006 at 10:46 AM

I've alway understood it was worse than that.
It was because he approved of Russian communism at that point. I know nothing about
the extent of his knowledge about the liquidation of the kulaks etc.( which of course he should have known about) but without specific knowledge I won't make that charge .Of course during the war itself
with presumably pretty full knowledge of
Stalin's history Churchill said that if the devil himself decided to join the allies
he'd make sure at the next Question Time
to incorporate a favorable reference to hell.

Duranty is only one of the LSM's
"saints" covered in this Jonah
Goldberg column. American Thinker
wrote:

Liberal

Jonah Goldberg has an excellent column today looking at all the lies underlying so many liberal “saints.” When you put them all together, the pattern becomes unmistakable. The cause always seems to require embellishment, and when the cause is based on a flawed premise the lies become more egregious.Ed Lasky 1 05 06
Click here: The American Thinker

If Christiane was caught in the net, it could be very possible that nobody intended to catch her in the net. It would, considering the details of the program, more likely be British cel phone number +(21)555-1234 received a phone call from a terrorism suspect and started the NSA computers buzzing.
That it belonged to Christiane might only have come to light later, after they analyze their data.

Remember the speculation that Rice got caught in the Able Danger net. I don't think anyone imagined Rice was actually a target of spying.

Mitchell and Cooper and their ilk are amazing. They still haven't figured out that the old days are gone, their foolishness and ignorance is no longer wiped away by the next toilet paper commercial. What they say is remembered now, and recorded... and they are being held accountable.

Does Christiane Amanpour associate with terrorists? Did she talk with terroritsts? We must know. Come clean, Chritiane. Since Christiane, like many reporters, is married to a Democrat operatives, what does the DNC know and when did thy know it.

(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States . . .

The Fourth Amendment question is slightly trickier, as it protects US citizens even if they're abroad, but the precedent suggests surveillance for intelligence purposes would be on pretty safe ground (introducing it as evidence in court might be slightly more difficult).

As a separate question, I think the politcal repercussions of monitoring journos would make the activity unacceptable.

Sorry, I still don't see it. There might be some question of the propriety of a US journalist contacting the enemy during wartime (foreign journos are clearly entitled to contact Al Qaeda as they wish), but if they decide to do so, I don't see any reason we shouldn't monitor them, if we can. And if Amanpour develops good contacts with Al Qaeda, tapping her phones to exploit them appears to me to be good tradecraft. She can reclaim her privacy by terminating contact with terrorists, or not. I fail to see the public concern with the sanctity of her secret communications with the enemy in wartime. (What, do we really need her to get Al Qaeda's side of the story?)